G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Thursday, November 26, 2015

If you read my previous post (prior to my subsequent correction),
you will have noted that I obviously confused Serbia with Syria. I was attempting to state my personal, and I
believe justifiable, opinion that Syrian Christian refugees should be given
priority for admission to the United States.

I don’t, of course, have an editor to read my stuff. I was tired and grand-kids were visiting. Grandchildren have a way of disturbing one’s
focus – as most grandparents could attest. That said, I referred to Serbia rather than
Syria. I do know the difference. And, I have corrected the error.

As an aside, Serbia’s population is approximately 90%
Christian. To my knowledge they are not
being persecuted because of their faith – as is the case in Syria.

In addition to my apology for maligning the wrong country,
someone close to me said that my comments about President Obama were unkind and just plain
mean, and that I shouldn’t have said them. Said someone might be right. Barrack Obama is currently the President and deserving of due respect. However...

Monday, November 23, 2015

I disagree with the President. We should give priority
to Christians fleeing persecution in Syria. And I’ll tell you why.

I suppose that I should say, up front, that I am an Agnostic
(with some spiritual tendencies I suppose). Oh, I
know, no one particularly cares; but it does give a certain frame of reference
to my comments.

First, I’m convinced that Americans will face increased
security risks with the importation of Syrian refuges. Some say 10,000 Syrian refugees. Some say 100,000 or more. And, yes, there will be some radical Muslim
extremists among them – no doubt about that.
ISIS will use the refugee situation as an opportunity to import
terrorists (sleepers) who will strike when the opportunity presents
itself. Come on, think about it, why
wouldn’t they? Americans are generally
pretty gullible, hobbled by their penchant for political correctness – and ISIS
is well aware of that fact. On the
positive side for us, this situation will be far worse for the Europeans.

Why should Christians receive priority? Well, we are basically a Judeo-Christian nation – and have been since our founding.
Moreover, United States Law gives priority to those refugees
fleeing religious persecution. Who has suffered the most, been murdered, tortured, raped and enslaved by ISIS solely due to
their religious belief? Yes, of course,
the Christians. Are not they the ones we
should help first? The President has
said such ‘discrimination’ would be against everything that the United States stands
for. He is wrong.

Can Syrian Christians be positively verified as such? I’m not sure, but I believe they (Syrian Christians) are fairly clannish and have been generally residing in certain
areas of Syria. Someone, probably a
Syrian expert, could probably identify a Christian refugee – as opposed to a
Muslim refugee. Should this be an
absolute qualifier for refugee status and admission to the U.S.? No, some Muslims, principally parents with
children, should also be considered for admission after appropriate vetting – a
second priority. Unaccompanied Muslim
men between approximately 20 and 50 years of age should be the last priority
for admission to the U.S.

I heard the comment bandied-about that 23 million Americans
believe that President Barrack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t know where they dug-up that
statistic; but let’s just say that the statistic is true. I don’t happen to believe the President is a
Muslim. On the other hand, I don’t
happen to believe he is a Christian.
Being perceived as a Christian was just one more concession the
President had to make in order to pursue his political ambitions. No, my opinion is that when the President
thinks about a higher-being, he simply looks in the mirror.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

After reading an article in the LA Times by Jonathan
Zimmerman – well, it really caused me to pause and consider.

What so impressed me about Dr. Zimmerman’s (who is a professor at
New York University) article? It was interesting,
about ‘gun control,’ and a little bit different take. Dr. Zimmerman made the observation that
whether you’re a gun advocate or a gun control proponent, we are generally wasting
our time attempting to argue the finer points of the ‘gun control’ issue. In other words, nobody is listening –
certainly no one whose views are the opposite of yours. He compared the ‘gun control’ issue with
‘Prohibition.’

Zimmerman said:

“… a book by a University of California – San Diego
sociologist named Joseph Gusfield convinced me that Prohibition wasn’t really
aimed at ridding America of beer, wine and whiskey. It was instead a ‘Symbolic Crusade’ by
native-born Protestants, who seized on prohibition to affirm their historic
dominance over immigrants and Roman Catholics.”

“… this controversy isn’t really about guns, any more than
Prohibition was about drink. It’s about
different ways of seeing the world and – most of all – about who will gain the
symbolic upper hand.”

“The question brings us back to Gusfield, who reminded us
that politics are a battle for symbolic as well as material advantage. Even if alcohol prohibition could never make
America ‘dry,’ it made its adherents feel as if the country was still theirs.”

If this is true, and it may very well be true, there is no point
for me to belabor the many issues and potential problems associated with gun control. After
all, no one, other than some in the choir, are listening to me anyway.Nonetheless, I’d still like to make a couple
of comments. And, oh yes, I wanted to
tell you why I left the NRA.

You can't ban 'assault weapons' if you can't define what they are. They are basically a semi-automatic rifle. The simple description of 'military style' just won't cut it.

Were you aware that rifles are seldom used in crime - maybe two percent of the time - if that? Assault weapons, whatever your definition, are hardly ever used.

High capacity magazines could be banned, but they are even
less commonly used in crime – particularly in a rifle. Semi-automatic pistols often hold 10 to 14
rounds. To reduce that capacity would
require a redesign, and ‘grandfathering’ millions of pre-existing pistols. Any legislation along those lines would have
minimal effect on crime. Moreover, ammo magazines
can be switched within a matter of seconds.

Background checks on all gun sales is theoretically
possible; but there is no evidence said action would have a meaningful effect
on crime. Gun owners, to sell guns,
would be at the mercy of gun stores; and they could, potentially cheat, or extract
maximum profits from average gun owners who are attempting to comply with the
law when selling a gun. It would, as a
result, create a gun ‘black market’ even larger than the one that already
exists.

Universal gun registration would cause a civil upheaval
bigger than prohibition. Honest citizens
would become criminals. And current criminals
would benefit all around, be emboldened, and undeterred in their previous
activities.

Bottom line: The real
answer is strict enforcement of the current law. Note my blog’s sidebar – Three Laws for
Effective Gun Control.

Why I left the NRA:
The NRA was running a quarter page advertisement for a ‘Street Sweeper,’ large capacity ammo-drum shotgun (depicted above) in their monthly magazine. This gun has only one purpose,
anti-personnel. It cannot be used for
hunting or any sporting events that I’m aware of. It was extremely poor taste on the part of the NRA
in that the ‘Street Sweeper’ would only appeal to someone who is, in my opinion, a few bricks
short of a load. Should it be
banned? I guess it could be said that it
is no more deadly than a regular shotgun.
I just felt the ad was over-the-top offensive; and I couldn’t believe
the NRA needed the advertising money that badly. I just wasn’t sure that I could even be a
fringe member of the organization – until, that is, the NRA starts exercising at
least a modicum of discretion.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.